NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains exactly one direct head-to-head comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 and the NVIDIA RTX A400, and it is a decisive result. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX A400 scores 22,844 points, while the GT 1010 manages 6,698 points. That represents a delta of -70.7% for the GT 1010, meaning the RTX A400 outperforms it by roughly 3.4 times in raw compute throughput. This is not a marginal gap; it is a generational chasm in favor of the Ampere-based workstation card.

Looking at the wider database context, the GT 1010's OpenCL score of 6,698 places it at the 38th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are AMD mobile and workstation parts: the Radeon R7 M370 (6,764, -1%), the Radeon R7 M460 (6,612, +1.3%), the Radeon HD 7730M (6,581, +1.8%), and the FirePro M5100 (6,830, -1.9%). All four rivals sit within a narrow 2% band of the GT 1010, confirming that this Pascal chip is effectively a low-end entry point, trading blows with older laptop graphics parts rather than competing with any modern desktop card.

The RTX A400, by contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 6,078 across all its recorded tests, but that figure is dragged down by its Passmark DirectX scores, which are anomalously low (32 in DirectX 10, 37 in DirectX 11, 27 in DirectX 12, 87 in DirectX 9). Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,844 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 22,237 tell a very different story: this is a GPU capable of substantial compute workloads. Its percentile ranking of 35th is somewhat misleading because of that mixed benchmark profile, but the head-to-head data is unambiguous.

The RTX A400's nearest rivals in the database include the GeForce MX230 (6,077, 0%), the Quadro P2000 (6,049, +0.5%), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6,117, -0.6%), and the AMD Radeon 760M (6,019, +1%). These comparisons are based on its average score, which is heavily weighted by the low Passmark results. In the single OpenCL test that both cards share, the RTX A400 leaves the GT 1010 far behind, and that is the measurement that matters for this comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 1010 wins in exactly zero head-to-head benchmark categories. That is a stark statistic, but it does not mean the card is without any use case in the database. Its 6,698 OpenCL score is competitive with its immediate rivals, all within a 2% margin, so it sits at the bottom of the performance spectrum but not at the very bottom. The card's transistor density of 24.3M per mm² on a 74 mm² die, with 1,800 million transistors, suggests a design focused on minimal power draw and basic display output rather than raw throughput.

The RTX A400 wins the only recorded head-to-head test, and its strengths extend across multiple dimensions. Its Passmark G3D score of 5,983 and Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,557 indicate that even in traditional rasterization workloads, it outperforms the GT 1010 by a wide margin. The Passmark G2D score of 899 shows strong 2D performance as well. The card also records a DirectX 9 score of 87, which is its highest Passmark result, suggesting that legacy API workloads may be a relative strength.

For compute-heavy applications, the RTX A400's advantages are overwhelming. Its FP32 throughput is 2.706 TFLOPS, and it matches that with FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The GT 1010 offers only 751.6 GFLOPS of FP32 and no recorded FP16 capability. The RTX A400 also brings dedicated ray tracing cores (6) and tensor cores (24), features entirely absent from the GT 1010. This is a card designed for workstation tasks: rendering, AI inference, and professional visualization.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The GT 1010 is a basic display adapter, suited for office systems or legacy builds where 3D performance is secondary. The RTX A400 is a low-profile workstation accelerator, suited for professionals who need CUDA compute, ray tracing, and higher memory bandwidth. The database shows no scenario where the GT 1010 wins, but its low 30 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it an easy drop-in for systems with minimal power budgets.

The Verdict

The data points to an unambiguous conclusion: the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the superior card in every measured category. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,844 versus the GT 1010's 6,698 is a 3.4x advantage, and it also offers 4 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 2 GB of GDDR5, doubling capacity while also doubling bandwidth from 48.06 GB/s to 96.00 GB/s. The RTX A400 is built on a newer architecture (Ampere versus Pascal), uses a more advanced 8 nm process versus 14 nm, and includes hardware features that the GT 1010 simply does not have.

For a user who needs a card for display output only, the GT 1010 is sufficient. Its 38th percentile ranking and close competition with AMD Radeon R7 M-series parts indicate it is a functional, if unremarkable, entry-level GPU. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so it can handle modern API requirements at basic settings.

For anyone who needs actual graphics or compute performance, the RTX A400 is the only rational choice. Its 35th percentile ranking is deceptive, because its average is skewed by extremely low Passmark DirectX scores that do not reflect its real capability. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 22,237 confirms that the OpenCL result is not an outlier. The RTX A400 is a genuine compute card, and the GT 1010 is not.

The production status also tells a story: the GT 1010 is end-of-life, while the RTX A400 is active. The GT 1010 was released in January 2021, the RTX A400 in April 2024, a three-year gap that explains the architectural leap. If the choice is between a discontinued Pascal part and an active Ampere part, the database overwhelmingly favors the newer card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 22,844, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 scores 6,698, a delta of -70.7% for the GT 1010.

Q: Does the RTX A400 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RTX A400 includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. The GT 1010 has no ray tracing or tensor cores.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The GT 1010 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The GT 1010 has an average benchmark score of 6,698. The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6,078, though its Geekbench OpenCL score is 22,844.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX A400 has 43.5M transistors per mm² on an 8 nm process, while the GT 1010 has 24.3M per mm² on a 14 nm process.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The GT 1010 has a 30 W TDP and no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP, also no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras of NVIDIA design. The GT 1010 is built on the GP108 chip using the Pascal architecture on a 14 nm process from Samsung. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². Pascal was NVIDIA's architecture for the GeForce 10 generation, and it introduced improvements in power efficiency and memory compression over its predecessor, GeForce 900, but it lacks dedicated hardware for ray tracing or tensor operations.

The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip with the Ampere architecture on an 8 nm process, also from Samsung. This chip contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 43.5M per mm². Ampere is a substantially more advanced architecture, designed for workstation and datacenter workloads. The RTX A400 includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-based features like DLSS. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the GT 1010 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

The memory subsystem reflects the architectural gap. The GT 1010 uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective on a 64-bit bus, achieving 48.06 GB/s. The RTX A400 uses GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective, also on a 64-bit bus, but doubles the bandwidth to 96.00 GB/s. The RTX A400 also doubles memory capacity to 4 GB, which is significant for modern workloads.

The interface differs as well: the GT 1010 connects via PCIe 3.0 x4, while the RTX A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, offering more bandwidth for data transfer. The RTX A400 also supports four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the GT 1010 offers a single DVI and a single mini-HDMI 2.0. Both are single-slot designs with no power connectors, but the RTX A400 is longer at 163 mm versus 147 mm.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two cards are stark. The GT 1010 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The RTX A400 triples the shading units to 768, increases TMUs to 24, and doubles ROPs to 16. The pixel rate rises from 11.74 GPixel/s on the GT 1010 to 28.19 GPixel/s on the RTX A400. Texture rate jumps from 23.49 GTexel/s to 42.29 GTexel/s.

Compute performance is where the gap is widest. The GT 1010 delivers 751.6 GFLOPS of FP32, while the RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS, a 3.6x difference. The RTX A400 also matches FP16 performance at 2.706 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the GT 1010 has no recorded FP16 capability. Clock speeds favor the RTX A400 as well, with a base of 1,417 MHz and a boost of 1,762 MHz, versus 1,228 MHz base and 1,468 MHz boost on the GT 1010.

The RTX A400 uses 50 W versus 30 W on the GT 1010, and its suggested PSU is 250 W versus 200 W. Both cards have no power connectors and are single-slot. The RTX A400 is physically larger at 163 mm by 69 mm, while the GT 1010 is 147 mm long with no recorded height. The GT 1010 is end-of-life, released in January 2021, while the RTX A400 is active, released in April 2024. The GT 1010's predecessor is GeForce 900 and its successor is GeForce 20; the RTX A400's predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada.